Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

The latest news from Deer & Deer Hunting magazine!
User avatar
shaman
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:38 am

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby shaman » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:48 am

I think some of y'all are not taking a broad enough view of this.  That's why I started the "Towards a New Understanding" thread.   Woodsey and I are two of a kind in an important way.  Woods Walker walks around the woods in a smelly ghilly suit.  I pee off my tree stand.  We both generally flaunt a lot of the new-wave ideas that have come into deer hunting in the past generation.  We are both successful deer hunters.  Part of this comes from the fact that we were both around before the new hype started.  We remember what life was like before Scent Lok  and its ilk started to hog up the channel.  We're also old enough to have had enough experience to look at all this crud with a high degree of skepticism.

So here are two old farts  telling the world that the emperor is running around stark naked. What can you guys take away from this episode?  The point here is not whether Scent Lok worked or that Scent Blocker might somehow be different or that activated charcoal is or is not a boon to deer hunting.  It goes far deeper than that.  There are two important takeaways:

1)  You need to go back at look at the whole paradigm.  Assume Woodsie and I aren't just two old cranks. Now go back and look at how many so-called experts have been touting this scent reduction technology for two decades. What does this say about the experts and their level of credibility and integrity?

2) Not only was the technology itself fraudulent, but the whole underpinning of the idea may be bogus.  If deer hunters really felt like they saw more deer wearing their fancy charcoal suits, then it probably doesn't make much difference.  Just wearing a rain suit might do as good, or maybe just being a little more careful in how you wash yourself and your clothes may be all it takes. Or maybe Woodsie and I are more right than we knew and it doesn't make all that much difference at all.

Now don't get me wrong.  I still wash my stuff in baking soda. Maybe I'm being superstitious, but I believe that going out in a 3-day pit stink and wearing clothes that stink of moth balls is not an effective way to hunt deer.  The rest I'm willing to discuss.  You might even be able to knock me off that position, because now I'm looking at all my cigarette smoking buddies and all the other apostates I've met over the past 30 years and wondering-- how important really IS scent management? 
Genesis 9:2-4 Ministries of SW Bracken County, KY
Confessions of a Cervid Serial Killer
Image

User avatar
fasteddie
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:38 am
Location: Western NY

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby fasteddie » Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:54 am

My wife bought some Browning Scent Suppressant hunting clothes for Christmas 4 - 5 years ago . Would I have bought it for myself ? Probably not . It's comfortable , very comfortable and I wear it during archery season . I think it helps but I know it doesn't eliminate / remove all odor . Anyone who purchased it under that pretext , is stupid or very naive .
There are so many products on the market that make rediculous promises and they aren't being sued . I am hoping that the lawsuit against these companies that make Scent-Lok , etc fall flat . I would hate to see a bunch of folks lose their jobs / livlihood because some dumb asses thought Scent Lok was going to make them scent free . By the way , have these folks involved in the lawsuit turned in their false advertised garments for a refund ..........? [8|]
Semper Fi !

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby Woods Walker » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:50 am

I believe that's all they originally wanted was a refund, because they said it didn't work as advertised. The company (either Cabela's or Gander Mt.) refused, so they sued, and this is the result.

If Scent Loc had advertised their products as scent REDUCTION or dispersal, or that it HELPED reduce the prescence of human scent, then there'd be no problem and no lawsuit. But they didn't. They sold it as scent ELIMINATION, which is an outright lie.

And a question for all of you that now claim that you never believed for a second that Scent Loc would elminate scent......

Then why'd you pay that much money for a product that you claim you knew was merely expensive raingear????

IMO, their credibility is shot. This should give anyone who owns any very grave doubts about the so-called "regeneration" that they claim you can do in a regular dryer. Why would they NOT lie about that too???

And while I hate to see an "innocent" worker lose their job, how about all the hardworking "regular guys" who got BILKED out of their hard earned money?

In my business I use skid-steer loaders for many tasks, one of which is unloading semi-trucks of palletized lanscape block. I need a loader that is capable of lifting 2 tons at least 8' off the ground. If the maker of the skid loader says that the unit I want to buy can handle 4000 pounds, then it better. If I get the thing on a job and it can only handle 1000 pounds, then SOMEONE is going to pay.....and pay big.

Maybe this will send a message that fraud and deceit WILL NOT be tolerated, and that if you advertise something as being able to do a certain task, then it damn well better able to do it, and I don't care if it applies to lures, arrows, calls, or whatever. 2+2=4. Not 3 or 2. If you can't back up the claim, then don't make it.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

NEW61375
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:55 am

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby NEW61375 » Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:30 am

http://deeranddeerhunting.com/article/Carbon-Clothing-Serious-Hunters-Know-the-Truth/

That article was fairly amusing.  Bashing the judges ruling as opinion and then following it up with a bunch of opinion.  Well I am a serious hunter and I do feel like I know the truth.  To easily understand how activated carbon works look at one of its most common applications, air purifying/filtering which was even referenced in the above article but apparently not fully understood. 

from d&dh: 
"Activated carbon is used in thousands of filtration processes for adsorption purposes and many are likely used within your home and automobile."

facts on carbon in filtration systems(or clothing):
"The performance of a carbon filter is determined by the quality and amount of carbon present, by the activation process used, by the flow pattern of air through the filter, and by the moisture in the air. A given amount of carbon can only absorb a certain amount of volatile organic chemicals/compounds, so clearly the more carbon present (ie. the denser or heavier the filter) the longer it will work. Airflow through filters is fairly easy to achieve because air has very high "diffusivity" meaning there is little resistance to flow even through very tiny holes.
The holes in carbon are referred to as macropores (large), mesopores (medium) and micropores (small). Absorption mainly takes place in the smaller (micro) pores. It is here that the attraction forces (hooks) are most concentrated. The larger pores, although they have some absorption capacity, mainly act to conduct air or fluid to the micropores,

High humidity reduces air filter performance because carbon particles become coated with water, and water reduces the diffusivity into the pellets. However if performance drops off because a filter becomes wet, it is relatively simple to improve performance by driving warm, dry air through the filter to evaporate the water, dry out the pores within the carbon and re-expose the hooks.

Once a carbon filter has become completely filled with organic compounds, it is like a saturated sponge that cannot hold any more water. You can wring out a sponge and use it again. You can also clean out a carbon filter, but this requires dissolving and digesting the bound organic compounds, which usually requires hot, caustic solutions and solvents. The high cost of recycling carbon versus the cheap cost of manufacturing carbon usually means it makes more sense to simply replace filters, or replace the carbon, rather than recycle the saturated/spent product. The exception is large-scale industrial processes where handling hazardous caustics and solvents is routine."(see below for source)
http://www.hollandforge.com.au/contents/en-us/d66.html

Apply that info to your activated carbon clothing and tell me what quality and amount of carbon are used, what activation process, how much odor it can absorb, 1 early season bowhunts worth? 5? 10? 

When do you know the carbon is used up so to speak?  Because once it is full, that's it, it's full.  You can't reactivate it or cleanse it of what it has absorbed and it becomes just camo.  

Yeah serious hunters do know the truth and it's the same it's always been, keep yourself and your clothes/gear as clean and scent free as possible and use the wind to the best of your ability.  No snake oil or temporary scent absorbing clothing necessary.  The judge was spot on.

User avatar
Goose
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:36 pm

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby Goose » Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:28 am

WW- Here is a ghilli suit from cabelas http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templ ... jsp.form23

The use the term "scent free" and say that it wont slow me down. If I can prove that the string does smell like something and that in fact when I am wearing the suit, it does slow me down, can I sue em?
Jake

Genesis 27:3 Take your bow and quiver full of arrows out into the open country, and hunt some wild game.....

Wolf River Hunter
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:09 am

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby Wolf River Hunter » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:38 pm

Don't forget about puffery. (From wikipedia) The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defined puffery as a "term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined." [2]

The FTC stated in 1984 that puffery does not warrant enforcement action by the Commission. In its FTC Policy Statement on Deception, the Commission stated: "The Commission generally will not pursue cases involving obviously exaggerated or puffing representations, i.e., those that the ordinary consumers do not take seriously."
I'd rather drag out a 4 pointer with my father than a 10 pointer alone.

NEW61375
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:55 am

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby NEW61375 » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Possibly if the garment has a scent and you could prove that scent came specifically from the "string material" and not some other part of the suit then maybe, I don't know. I swear I can smell many rubber boots but supposedly they leave no scent, I don't know about that either.

I see your point above but the fact of the matter is Scent Lok said all of this:

"Odor eliminating technology"

"Odor eliminating clothing"

"Eliminates all types of odors"

"Odor elimination"

"Remove all odor"

"Complete scent elimination"

"Scent free"

"Works on 100% of your scent 100% of the time"

"All human scent"

"Odor is eradicated"

"...graphics demonstrating that human odor cannot escape the carbon embedded fabric,.."


When the fact of the matter is the charcoal aborbs some of the odors, vapors, gas, etc. but not all. Furthermore, it only does that temporarily. Yet Scent lok hasn't been and still isn't saying that, this from there site 5 minutes ago:

"Directions: Follow all care instructions indicated on garment label. Scent-Lok garments should be reactivated every 30-40 hours of field use. Immediately as the garments are removed from the dryer, place them in an airtight container. Always store garments dry, never damp.

Washing needs may vary according to your body type and hunting conditions, however we suggest washing Scent-Lok garments only when noticeably soiled.

Keep your Scent-Lok garments away from any foreign odors for best results and life expectancy. Excessive odors will require the system to be reactivated more often. Do not use cover scents in conjunction with Scent-Lok gear."



The suit cannot be reactivated and the carbon it contains will become saturated, 100% guaranteed. Then what, you got high $ camo containing saturated carbon and that is definitely not what they were representing with their marketing. I haven't been too interested in the topic at all but the "serious hunters" article caught my interest.

User avatar
fasteddie
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:38 am
Location: Western NY

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby fasteddie » Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:19 pm

Goose ...... Take those Ghillie Suit BS'ers to court and sue the Ghillie suit pants off them ! They are made from artificial products so you cannot smoke the hemp ! [8|][8|]
Semper Fi !

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby Woods Walker » Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:49 pm

ORIGINAL: Goose

WW- Here is a ghilli suit from cabelas http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp?id=0014424932517a&type=product&cmCat=SEARCH_all&returnPage=search-results1.jsp&Ntk=Products&QueryText=ghilli+suit&sort=all&N=0&Nty=1&hasJS=true&_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jsp.form23

The use the term "scent free" and say that it wont slow me down. If I can prove that the string does smell like something and that in fact when I am wearing the suit, it does slow me down, can I sue em?

 
Goose: Why are you asking me? I'm not a Federal judge or a lawyer. But I'll play......
 
1. "Won't slow you down".  This is a subjective statement, and "slow" is a realtive term. Slower than what? You? A turtle? You in running shoes and , or in chest waders? Sorry Goose, no case.
 
2. "Scent free".   This is a pretty well absolute statement. If they say that it's scent free, then it'd better be. These two words definatively state that the item is sold WITHOUT SCENT, or HAVING NO SCENT. If it does have ANY scent, then go litigenous on them Goosey.
 
Or they could be like Pepsi when they sell Pepsi Free at the supermarket but you still have to pay for it. Maybe Cabelas means that the their ghillie suit DOES have scent, but that part of the ghillie's free.....[;)]
 
Methinks that after getting nailed in this suit along with Gander Mt. and Scent Loc, you may see some editing in Cabela's ad copy in the near future.
 
IMO, if I were selling a ghillie suit, I'd make no comment on it other than it's features(carry straps, adjustable sleeves, etc.), colors, and I'd state how much it weighs. You could also say that it HELPS (note that I didn't say that it DOES)breakup the human outline, when used in conjuction with cover, shadows and terrain.
 
But what's your point Goose? Advertisers of hunting gear SHOULD be able to state bald-faced lies and intentional deceit about their products with impunity? You would buy an insurance policy for yourself that states that it will pay $100,000.00 if you lose sight in one eye knowing full well that they won't pay you a nickle or only $10,000.00?  Do you own stock in Scent Loc or something? Or did you pay $500.00 for a Scent Loc suit and now find that it's just expensive raingear and you want to lessen the pain? [;)]
 
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

User avatar
Goose
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:36 pm

RE: Scent Loc Found Guilty Of False Advertising

Postby Goose » Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:29 pm

Haha, I figured you would like that! I really have no point other than that this type of advertisement is an issue with everything. I know that you love your gihllie suit so I looked it up on Cabelas and saw scent free and thought PERFECT! Woodsy is gonna love this!
For the record, I do own Scentblocker camo and do not regret it one bit. I believe I paid $200ish for the outfit and am glad I did, my personal experience with it in my scent control regimen has been positive. Its by far the best set of camo duds I have ever owned.

On a serious note, I agree with your description of products. When I get an equipment issue or cabelas mag in the mail, I am absolutely SICK and Tired of the word technology: This wind puffer has NEW wind flow TECHNOLOGY built right into it etc...shoot me please!!![:'(]
Jake

Genesis 27:3 Take your bow and quiver full of arrows out into the open country, and hunt some wild game.....

PreviousNext

Return to Breaking News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


cron